TJP

I see AV tests as great for marketing purposes but for little else. Many of the highest scoring AV vendors have dedicated test departments to ensure they get great test scores. I'm yet to read a sponsored AV report in which the sponsor fared badly. I've been around long enough to when Wilder's Security Forum was the go-to site; developers and researchers would post in threads about test results, security news, AV trends etc. Eset Nod32 was the first test darling, then Kaspersky, then Avira, then Bit Defender and so on. People would swap their AV based on test results which I never understood. Has a product failed you in the real world? If not, why change? Has the AV product caused issues with your PC? If not, why change? It's like changing cars because one car is faster to 100 km/h (or 60 MPH) or quarter mile in a group test. What about all the other aspects? I use Eset because its never failed me, never perceptively slowed my PC down, never deleted key files due to a virus definition update error and never blue-screened my PC. I'll take zero false positives, low system impact, little to no feature bloat (an area some AV suites go overboard with 'extra' features) and zero real world issues vs a high test score with FP's, system drag and whatever else it takes to be #1.

The AV testing world is little more than a snapshot in time; one month KIS is 'the one', next month it's Bitdefender etc. Most companies have teams dedicated to passing these tests, essentially it's their attempt to 'game' tests for better scores and marketing bragging rights. Eset performs roughly the same each and every month in a detection score of 98%-99% with very few, if any, FP. Windows 10 updates that bork many a PC are reason enough not to use MSE! Please read sysadmin on Reddit if you need further proof. Plus MSE creates a system drag (refer to AV-C performance test); Eset had the lowest system impact which is important when one actually wants to use their PC for productivity or gaming.

There has always been an interesting difference between AV-T and AV-C in performance tests; Eset fares far worse with AV-T than it does with AV-C. I have asked the forum admin to look into the AV-T results as they are often quoted in print magazines and on tech websites. I think this is largely because AV-T have an easy to copy & paste report format whereas AV-C make you read the test results. Moreover, I have used and/or trialled KIS, Bitdefender, Avira, Avast, AVG, Norton and Sophos. I found each more resource heavy on my PC and at least two blue screened my PC. Anyone who has followed AV testing knows there are test darlings that acsend and fall; I don't read too much into these tests but YMMV

We can therefore ignore AV Test because they are testing a defunct version.

AV-Comparatives says otherwise...

I'm happy with the results of Eset.; perhaps Eset should copy other AV organisations and create an team with the sole remit to pass AV tests with a 100% detection rate. As for MSE, 14 false positives and system drag (according to the same test organisation) means a 'no thanks' from me. I've seen way too many test darlings come and go over the last decade not to be too fussed by the results; I prefer hands-on over bench tests.

Do you trust It? - Yes. I've been a customer since Nod32 version 2.5! Do you trust the company ESET? - Yes. As, when you are using Anti-virus whenever It's on your PC or your phone. - Use Mobile Security on my tablet and phone. You are giving the AV kind of full control on your device - Yes. Like that thing happend to Kaspersky after this I would not trust them - Most of which was a media beatup from North America. Far more backdoors in Windows than Kaspersky has.

Same happening for me now too. I deleted some log file and up popped the live grid error message and this may be just a coincidence. A minute later & as I type this, Live Grid is back on.

Hi Brent, I would have thought so as Eset did detect the virus not long after the discovery was made. From the information you've posted, you should be fine. Futher, I was using the portable version of CCleaner which does not install itself. You can find the portable version on Major Geeks (https://www.majorgeeks.com/files/details/ccleaner_portable.html) Be aware that the company behind the program will often break the link to the portable version and you may end up in a loop trying to download the portable version. If you have the time, read the comments on Major Geeks download page about the issue.

@BrentMc Please read through the following link https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/how-to/security/ccleaner-malware-incident-what-you-need-to-know-and-how-to-remove/ It's a step by step guide to diagnose and remove any issues.

Anti-Russian articles in the USA media is no surprise at this time. It wasn't too long ago the USA were seen as the 'bad guys' e.g. hxxp://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/05/americans_to_fess_up_to_spying_on_europeans/ Some of the comments on the first story on the Washington Post are as nutty as the story itself. Xenophobia at its worst.

Not to sure about Glary but I do use Wise Disk Cleaner Portable version. It was highly rated by Major Geeks and does work really well.

Sadly, you'll still get people thinking Win Defender is all one needs, even with safe browsing habits. I'll stick with Eset for the time being

Same here (and I'm in the southern hemisphere). I'll give Eset time to sort itself out as the current version works fine.

Whom to believe...AV-C shows a different viewpoint for 2017: https://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php?chart=chart2&year=2016&month=7&sort=1&zoom=2 Eset 99.2% with zero false positives or 99.5% with user interaction MS 96.6% with 9 false positives Let's look at the last part of 2016: https://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php?chart=chart2&year=2016&month=7&sort=1&zoom=2 Eset 99.5% with zero false positives MS 97% with 23 false positives!! Look here at the lastest gaffe: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/03/ms_defender_bluber_false_alarm/ Performance test (i.e. system resource usage): https://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php?chart=chart2&year=2016&month=7&sort=1&zoom=2 Eset - equal 1st with Avira with 0.3 impact score MS - dead last with 22.7 impact score. There is a reason why MSE is free and Eset isn't

A test is little more than a snapshot at the time the test is completed..and as far as I'm aware several of the big name labs have special departments that are tasked with getting the highest scores in these tests so they are akin to VW's emission testing department That said, I'll take 99.7% detection rate with zero false positives over 100% with 11, 4 or even 1 false positive(s). Plus I've found ESS is an AV suite that is very light on the PC's that I run it on; I can't say the same for a few of the other vendors.

Hi, Check the posts in this thread: https://forum.eset.com/topic/9246-904020/ Cheers!

A result that finally mirrors my own findings with ESS

Based on this test I may switch back to Kaspersky Of course I'm joking Middle of the pack result for Eset - 98% with zero FP. Does Eset have a team dedicated to these tests like KL, Symantec and other AV vendors?

The Aussie marketplace for Eset was a little too 'wild West' as we had no official Eset representative and plenty of resellers! Many of the resellers didn't like AU users buying Eset from overseas retailers who had websites that looked more professional and trustworthy. Following the KL methodology of acting and appearing more professional certainly contributes to the 30% sales increases year on year. Once KL got a foothold into bricks and mortar retailers, along with sponsoring a few high profile sports teams, their sales numbers went through the roof and I hope Eset does the same. Just don't add all of the 'tech bloat' of KL products It will be interesting to see where Eset heads in the coming years; reading the mainstream websites it appears the more extra features and AV has, the higher value it offers the end user (at least according to the reviews I've read). I do hope Eset don't go down the Swiss Army Knife approach of so many vendors; after reading quite a few posts from Google's Project Zero project, many of these AV Vendors do more harm than good and many of the extra features are so basic, they appear to be little more than marketing bumpf.

Good showing Eset

As I respect your opinion TomFace; I agree that downloading from the originating source is often the best course of action The reason I really like and defend MajorGeeks is that (a) give the user the option to download from the author's website, (b) they test the software that is listed on their website and, (b) MG tag products that include PUP’s and/or run advertisements in some way. Often they'll explain how to avoid installing these optional extras too which is great for the novice PC user. Cheers.

MajorGeeks is a fine website! Used them for 10 years and never had any malware at all. What one doesn't need is to download the beta from there

ESS managed to block all but one 'nasty' in the tests.

FWIW, another solid showing by Eset. I see the usual test champions up the front too.